"I Now Pronounce You
Man and Husband?":
An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage

The issue of same-sex marriage1
is difficult because in the past we have relied on a commonsense, intuitive
understanding about marriage. Everyone simply knew what marriage
was and what it was for. Because of the nature of intuitions (underived
concepts, not conclusions based on preceding reason) it can be difficult
to defend their truth against those who assert something to the contrary.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, then, we must work extra hard to argue
for the definition of marriage as that union between a man and a woman only.2

Our Argument

The commonsense understanding of marriage has been that it begins a family,
and a family entails the idea of procreation. Marriage, then, is not a term
that applies to any relationship between human beings, but only particular
kinds of relationships: those that at least in principle can help form families,
the foundation of society. That is why governments have gone out of their
way to promote (not invent) marriage. As valuable as other relationships
may be, they do not need the same sort of social support because they do
not function in the same way the family functions in society.3

What we have happening today, however, is homosexuals wanting their relationships
recognized by the State as equal to married couples even though their relationship
does not serve the same purpose that the heterosexual marriage relationships
serve. The question we must ask, then, is If the relationships are not
equal, upon what grounds must we treat them as such?

To say homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships
is to make a qualitative distinction between the relationships, not
a judgment concerning the value of homosexuals' humanity. The two types
of relationships are simply different in both nature and function. Heterosexual
relationships are based on procreation, whereas homosexual relationships
are not. Heterosexuals can procreate, thus perpetuating society, but homosexual
relationships cannot (at least not naturally). Relationships that initiate
families are different from any other type of relationship and should be
treated as such. Marriage is a natural institution. There are clear and
natural reasons for it, which is why society at large has sought to protect
and perpetuate it.

Marriage is Something in Particular

I have just argued that marriage is something in particular. Homosexual
activists argue that marriage is a construct of the State that can be defined
in any manner the State chooses. They say marriage is about the public union
of two people who wish to affirm their love and commitment to one another
in a public, official manner. What's interesting is the limitation of this
definition. Where does the idea of two come from? Why not three or
four? And where do we get the idea that love is the foundation of marriage?
Who decided that? Nowhere in the history of the world has love been the
basis of marriage. What happened to procreation as the basis of, and reason
for marriage?

If marriage is a construct of the State, and the basis of marriage is love
and commitment, then there is no principled reason to prohibit group or
incestual marriages.4
Clearly this is not being argued by the State. They still want marriage
to mean something in particular, but they want to define what that particular
something is.

To demonstrate the insensibility of sanctioning same-sex unions as "marriage"
consider the following point made by Francis Beckwith: Just because you
can eat an ashtray doesn't make it food. Food is not determined by what
you put in your mouth, but by the nature of the substance itself, and the
types of things the body is designed to consume and use. Just because two
homosexuals pledge the vows of marriage does not make it a marriage. Marriage
is something in particular. Homosexuality is not congruent with the nature
and purpose of marriage, and therefore we should not call same-sex relationships
"marriage," nor give homosexuals the same rights/benefits we give
to heterosexual unions.5

Heterosexual Privileges and Children

Why is it that all cultures have approved of marriage as a male/female
relationship--and only this relationship--while ignoring all other
forms of relationships? Why has this relationship been privileged by all
societies in a way that is now being considered inappropriate favoritism?
Why is it that society has laws concerning marriage in the first place?

Justice Cordy, in his dissenting comments to the Massachusetts Supreme
Court's ruling on Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), made
some valuable remarks regarding the purpose of civil marriage:

Paramount among its many important functions, the institution
of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual
behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable
family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.
The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative
link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand
and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage
are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the
probable result and paternity presumed. The marital family is also
the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children.
Children learn about the world and their place in it primarily from those
who raise them, and those children eventually grow up to exert some influence,
great or small, positive or negative, on society. The institution of
marriage encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their
children as they grow, thereby encouraging a stable venue for the education
and socialization of children.
Civil marriage is the product of society's critical need to manage procreation
as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between members of the opposite
sex. Procreation has always been at the root of marriage and the reasons
for its existence as a social institution. (available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)

Justice Cordy made it clear that there is only one reason the government
has promoted and protected marriage: they produce the next generation of
society. Apart from a concern for children the government has no reason
to regulate private relationships. If there are no children involved, there
is no reason for the government to regulate and protect the relationship
(which is why the government does not regulate friendships).

What compelling reason, then, would the government have for regulating
same-sex relationships? Based on the government's purpose for sanctioning
civil marriage, frankly there is none. Homosexual relationships have nothing
to do with the purpose for which civil marriage is enacted; therefore,
homosexual relationships are not entitled to the benefits of marriage. While
both homosexuals and heterosexuals can make the same personal commitments
to each other, they are not entitled to receive the same social privileges
because homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships
in this defining area. Homosexual relationships only benefit homosexuals,
whereas heterosexual relationships benefit society at large because they
create and nurture the next generation of society. That is why government
has always sought to promote and protect heterosexual relationships of the
sexual kind, but not homosexual relationships of the sexual kind.

Once it is becomes clear that the government sanctions marriage with special
protections and privileges because of its desire for the creation, nurture,
and protection of children, it could be argued that homosexual couples who
are raising children together should be allowed to marry. While this
conclusion appears logical it ignores the crucial fact that the two homosexuals
seeking the union are not responsible for bringing the child into existence.
That required a male-female relationship. As David Orland noted, "Homosexual
'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual
ones" ("The Deceit of Gay Marriage," www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000307).
So the argument that homosexuals should qualify for the same benefits afforded
to heterosexual couples if they can come up with the same "package"
the government is interested in protecting fails on the grounds that this
"package" can only be obtained in an artificial, unnatural way.6

At this point it could be counter-argued that while same-sex couples cannot
themselves create children (the first interest of the State) they can be
responsible for nurturing them (the second interest of the State), and thus
the State should offer them legal benefits for doing so--not for the sake
of the same-sex couple, but for the sake of the child. This is a valid argument,
but it is limited in application. It would not argue for same-sex marriage
in general, but only those cases in which a homosexual couple is raising
a child together. This situation is clearly not the norm.7

Furthermore, the government has not, and indeed will not sanction every
sort of non-traditional relationship that decides to rear children. Justice
Sosman made this point clear in her dissenting remarks to the Massachusetts
Supreme Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health:

Reduced to its essence, the court's opinion concludes
that, because same-sex couples are now raising children, and withholding
the benefits of civil marriage from their union makes it harder for them
to raise those children, the State must therefore provide the benefits
of civil marriage to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex
couples. Of course, many people are raising children outside the confines
of traditional marriage, and, by definition, those children are being
deprived of the various benefits that would flow if they were being raised
in a household with married parents. That does not mean that the Legislature
must accord the full benefits of marital status on every household raising
children. People are of course at liberty to raise their children
in various family structures, as long as they are not literally harming
their children by doing so. That does not mean that the State
is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement,
and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that
a free society permits. (available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf,
italics)

The government does not give legal sanction and benefits to single individuals,
non-married heterosexual couples, nor polygamous groups who happen to be
raising children, so why must it do so for same-sex couples who obtain and
raise children? On what basis is the government justified in giving legal
and social benefits/approval for same-sex relationships because they happen
to be raising children, while simultaneously denying the same benefits/approval
to other non-traditional individuals/groups who are doing the same? What
is the basis for such discrimination? The reason is clear: society does
not want to give social approval to those alternative relationships because
they do not believe they are good for society, nor good for optimal child-rearing.

One final argument can be made against offering same-sex couples legal
and social benefits/approval simply because they happen to be raising children:
same-sex couples who choose to procure and raise children do so in violation
of natural law. Natural law argues against the idea of homosexuals even
raising children.8
The natural order of things only provides children to mothers and fathers,
not mothers and mothers or fathers and fathers. It seems most reasonable
and natural, then, that a child is raised by the individuals who created
him/her. The natural state of things may just indicate that children not
only need a mom and dad to come into existence in the first place, but also
to be nurtured properly. Common sense and experience tells us that moms
and dads have unique perspectives to offer a child, both of which are necessary
for a healthy and balanced self-being. Based on natural law it should never
be the case that homosexuals are raising children, and thus there is no
principled reason that the State should endorse that sort of living arrangement
by putting the greatest seal of social approval on the adult relationship:
marriage.

Marriage is Recognized by Society, Not Defined by
Society

Marriage is a particular something, not an "arbitrary anything."
Marriage is not defined by society, but rather recognized
by society. This point cannot be made any better than with the words of
Greg Koukl:

It is not culture that constructs marriages or the families
that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and
family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families
are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks
aren't the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks.
You must have the first before you can get the second.
Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent
of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts and
acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to
create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to
protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.
Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and
women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that
allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding
that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and
government entitlements of marriage. This alone answers our question,
"What is marriage?"
Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of culture.
Families--and therefore marriages--are logically prior to culture.9

Marriage is not an institution constructed by culture; culture is constructed
by the institution of marriage. Culture merely recognizes its foundation
and seeks to protect it.10

What About

Equal Protection

The courts are treating the same-sex marriage issue as an issue of equal
protection, but it is clear that our current marriage laws have not violated
anyone's equal protection. Homosexuals have the same right every other U.S.
citizen has: they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They
choose not to afford themselves of this right, however.11
The real issue is not equal protection, but additional rights. Homosexuals
have the same rights heterosexuals have, but they want more. That being
the case we need to ask ourselves upon what basis should such rights be
afforded them?

The government does not afford me the right to marry my cousin, a child,
my sister, two women, a woman who is already married, or my dog. That is
disappointing news to the incestuous, the pedophile, the polygamous, and
the bestialitist. But what if I love them? Isn't it discrimination to say
I cannot marry my sister? Yes, it is discrimination, but it is appropriate
discrimination based on the nature and purpose of marriage itself.12
Marriage is not anything we want to make it, but something in particular.
Marriage is not defined by society, but recognized by society for what it
is. Homosexuals have the same opportunity for marriage that every other
citizen in this country has. What they want are additional rights, not equal
rights. They desire someone of the same sex, rather than the opposite sex.
"There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that
is not the State's concern."13

Greg Koukl summed up the deficiency of the "inequality" argument
when he said, "The basic rule of justice is that equals should be treated
equally. To claim injustice, then, is to claim equality of the parties concerned.
It [homosexuality] should only be given equal status if it is, in
fact, equal. This is the heart of the issue: the equality of homosexual
relationships with heterosexual relationships."14

The issue is not the equal worth of the human beings involved, but the
equality of relationships being entered into. If heterosexual and homosexual
relationships differ in some relevant way, then they do not need to be treated
as equal.

Freedom and Marriage

The same-sex marriage issue is not about freedom or personal liberty either.
We know this because marriage is not about freedom and liberty. The State's
recognition of a couple's union is not necessary for them to have such a
union. Friendships and cohabiters are not recognized by the State, and yet
these are valid relationships people are free to engage in. Why should homosexuals
be given preferential treatment simply because theirs is a sexual relationship?15

Marriage is about society putting their stamp of approval on a particular
type of relationship.16
Homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, not because their freedom
to have loving, committed relationships with someone of the same sex is
being denied them, but because they are seeking approval, respect, and social
acceptance.17
For us to deny them the right to marry someone of the same sex is not to
deny them freedom, but social approval. "Legalizing homosexual marriage
will not give homosexuals a new liberty. It will give them a new social
standing."18
Justice Cordy said that "this is not about government intrusions
into matters of personal liberty. It is not about the rights of same-sex
couples to choose to live together, or to be intimate with each other, or
to adopt and raise children together. It is about whether the State must
endorse and support their choices by changing the institution of civil marriage
to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them."
(Goodridge v. Department of Public Health [2003], available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)

Homosexuals have the freedom to love another person of the same sex and
commit to that individual for life in a loving relationship. No one is prohibiting
them from doing so. There are even ceremonies available for such commitments.
What the State has done is refuse to recognize and sanction this sort of
relationship as equal to heterosexual marriage. They have not granted homosexual
couples the same social approval and legal benefits/protections afforded
heterosexual couples. There is nothing wrong with that. The State does not
recognize all relationships as equal. Not all relationships are given social
approval and special protection by the government (such as friendships)--only
those that are foundational to the health and welfare of society.

At this point some will cry out "Discrimination!" I agree. It
is discrimination. What's wrong with that? There are times in which discrimination
is appropriate (such as discriminating between poison and medicine when
looking for something to cure your headache). Discrimination is justified
when it is just and appropriate to the data/circumstances. Discriminating
in favor of heterosexual relationships and against homosexual relationships
is justified if it can be shown that the two relationships differ in some
relevant way. Such a difference can be demonstrated. Homosexual relationships
are different in both nature and function in society, and as such should
be treated differently by society. Just because homosexuals can chew an
ashtray does not mean that ashtrays must be added to the menus of American
restaurants!

Granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples will bring them no new freedom,
and denying them such licenses "does not restrict any liberty."19
The only thing homosexual couples currently lack that a marriage license
will bring them is respect and a sense of legitimacy in the eyes of society.
Andrew Sullivan made this very point in his 1995 book, Virtually Normal:

Gay marriage is not a radical step. It is a profoundly
humanizing, traditionalizing step. It is the first step in any resolution
of the homosexual question--more important than any other institution,
since it is the most central institution to the nature of the problem,
which is to say, the emotional and sexual bond between one human being
and another. If nothing else were done at all, and gay marriage were legalized,
ninety percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian
equality would have been achieved. It is ultimately the only reform that
truly matters.

Love and Marriage

Some will disagree with what we have determined is the purpose of marriage.
They say marriage is about love, not procreation. But marriage is not about
love. How do we know this? We know this because there are many people who
love one another and yet choose not to marry, some who are married but do
not love each other, and some who cannot marry in spite of their love for
one another. We also know this because the State never seeks to confirm
that a couple is in love before issuing them a marriage license. They are
not interested in their love, but in their procreative partnership.20
They intuitively understand that marriage is not about love. Homosexual
theologian, Richard E. Long, admits that the secular purpose of marriage
is not love, even though he argues that the purpose of marriage is love.
He wrote:

Society, it seems to me, has no real stake in making sure
that people who marry in fact marry out of love. It might prefer that
a married couple who might procreate love one another because a household
in which the spouses love one another is probably healthier for children
than one in which the spouses have bound together for any number of other
reasons. However, society does not insist that couples love one another
in order to obtain a marriage license. Certainly, it insists on no evidence
thereof-even if we might try to conceive what such evidence might be.
Nevertheless, in our culture, most people do marry out of love. Whatever
society's interest in marriage, individuals tend to opt for marriage in
search of certain kinds of emotional satisfaction. [Ronald E. Long, "In
Support of Same-Sex Marriage" Philosophia Christi 7 (2005):
29-39; available from http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/same-sex.pdf;
Internet; accessed 22 August 2005.]

Marriage is about families, and families are about children. Same-sex marriage
is inconsistent with the purpose of marriage, and that is why homosexual
unions should not be given the same recognition as heterosexual unions.
Love outside of the procreative context may be good, but that alone is not
deserving of society's concern; children are society's concern, and children
come from heterosexual, not homosexual unions.

C.S. Lewis made a point in reference to the relationship of love and marriage
when he said, "The idea that 'being in love' is the only reason for
remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise
at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and
if it adds nothing, then it should not be made."21
While Lewis' point concerned heterosexual couples who were already married,
it is equally applicable to unmarrieds, both heterosexual and homosexual
alike. The grounds of marriage is not love. That may be an emotionally compelling
reason to get married, but that is not its purpose. There is another reason
we enter the social contract of marriage: for the production of, and stabilization
of the family unit--the building block of society. If marriage is fundamentally
about love marriage would not be necessary, because marriage does not produce
love, nor does it secure it. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of divorced
couples in our society!

What about Bisexuals?

Bisexuals present an interesting dilemma to advocates of same sex marriage.
They argue that people should be allowed to marry according to their natural
preferences: men who naturally prefer relationships with men should be allowed
to marry a man; women who naturally prefer relationships with women should
be allowed to marry a woman. But in the case of bisexuals they naturally
prefer both men and women. Given the principle of their argument, how can
they deny bisexuals the right to marry two people (polygamy)? If they deny
them that right they do so only by contradicting their guiding principle.
If they are consistent and grant them that right they risk being ostracized
by the moral majority of this country who think polygamy is wrong.

Bisexuals present yet another challenge to the arguments advanced in favor
of same-sex marriage. Many same-sex marriage advocates argue that gays should
be able to marry someone of the same sex because their sexual desires are
not chosen, and it would be unfair to deprive them of the good of marriage
given that fact. Dennis Prager asks a fair question to those who make this
argument: "Should a bisexual be able to marry someone of the same-sex?"
If the person answers in the negative they are violating their principle
that people should be able to marry according to their natural preferences.
If they answer in the affirmative they reveal that their argument is a front.
One cannot argue that same-sex couples should be able to marry because they
have no choice in their sexual desires, and argue that those who do have
a choice (bisexuals) should be able to marry someone of the same sex as
well. Either the ground for same-sex marriage is the lack of sexual choice
or it is not. The fact of the matter is that the "no choice" argument
is typically a front for a more basic, libertarian view that people should
be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But
if that is the basis for promoting same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage
advocates would do well to just say so.

Conclusion

Same-sex marriage is not about liberty, but the demand of homosexuals that
society approve of their lifestyle. "The courts and legislatures are
being pressed into service for one purpose: to force society, through the
institution of legal marriage, to accord the same respect and acceptance
to homosexual unions that heterosexual unions now enjoy. It would force
the rest of us to treat as equal those relationships we know aren't equal."22
To accomplish this end homosexual activists are willing to threaten the
very foundation of society, rob children of moms and dads, argue that marriage
is nothing in particular, and that parents are nothing in particular. As
Maggie Gallagher noted,

the problem with endorsing gay marriage is not that it
would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but
that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central
presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires.

Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire
of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers
and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a
motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen "good."

To make a marriage, what you need is a husband and a wife. Redefining
marriage so that it suits gays and lesbians would require fundamentally
changing our legal, public, and social conception of what marriage is
in ways that threaten its core public purposes.
(Maggie Gallagher, "What Marriage Is For;" available from http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp?pg=2;
Internet, accessed 23 December 2003.)

Only the uninformed or the foolish could believe same-sex marriage would
not have an impact on society! No appeal to religion or morality is necessary
to argue that same-sex couples are not entitled to the benefits of marriage.
The argument is defensible purely on the grounds of social policy; based
on the very purpose of civil marriage.

Objections

O:The fight for same-sex marriage is like the fight for civil
rights some 40 years ago. A: "The debate about same-sex marriage is not about whether
homosexuals, as human beings, are equal with other human beings, as was
the case with Rosa Parks. It's about whether homosexuality is equal with
heterosexuality, and therefore should receive equal legal status and equal
social respect."23
Same-sex marriage is no more an issue of civil rights than it is an issue
of civil rights to deny a man the right to a hysterectomy.24
By nature men do not qualify for hysterectomies, and homosexuals do not
qualify for marriage.

A similar objection compares the prohibition of same-sex marriage to the
anti-miscegenation laws (laws prohibiting interracial marriage) that were
overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967). Maggie Gallagher offered
a pointed rebuttal to this objection:

The Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws because
they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist
legal order. Marriage laws, by contrast, were not invented to express
animus toward homosexuals or anyone else. Their purpose is not negative,
but positive: They uphold an institution that developed, over thousands
of years, in thousands of cultures, to help direct the erotic desires
of men and women into a relatively narrow but indispensably fruitful channel.
We need men and women to marry and make babies for our society to survive.
We have no similar public stake in any other family form--in the union
of same-sex couples or the singleness of single moms. (Maggie Gallagher,
"What Marriage Is For;" available from http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp?pg=2;
Internet, accessed 23 December 2003. Originally appeared under the title
"Children Need Mothers and Fathers" in the August 4, 2003 issue,
Vol. 8, Issue 45, of The Weekly Standard. )

O:How will same-sex marriage affect you? People should be able
to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.A: People used this same argument for cohabitation back in the 1950s
and 60s. The past 50 years have shown just how wrong it was. Cohabitation
has proven to be detrimental to the institution of marriage, and hence children.
The number of people choosing to forego marriage in favor of cohabitation
increased 1000% from 1960 to 1998 (Population Resource Center, http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/changingnation/changingnation.html),
currently at 5.5 million people. The percentage of adults who have never
married increased from 22% in 1970 to 28% in 2000.

There has been a dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock as well.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in a report titled
"Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States 1940-99," (48 Nat'l
Vital Stat. Reps. at 2, October 2000) nonmarital childbirths increased from
3.8% in 1940 to 33% in 1999. One out of three cohabiters are currently raising
children.

Marriage is a social institution, not a private institution. As such,
changing the definition of marriage will affect society at large. It will
affect their conception of the meaning and significance of marriage. If
the institution of marriage is weakened in the eyes of society, society
itself will be weakened because marriage stands at its foundation.

This argument also ignores the power of ideas. The sanctioning of same-sex
marriage is an affirmation that marriage is nothing in particular, but a
construct of society that can be changed at will. When marriage is viewed
as a changing institution the privileges, benefits, and protections of marriage
are all up for grabs.25

The sanctioning of same-sex marriage not only transforms our understanding
of marriage from that of a static institution to one that is socially determined,
but it is also a declaration that marriage can be defined in ways uninformed
by children. It is a declaration that marriage and procreation have nothing
to do with one another. For the first time in history the function of marriage
would no longer be centered around children, but on the adult couple's relationship
itself. This is a departure from the rest of human history and is significant
indeed. Justice Cordy aptly noted that

as long as marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples
who can at least theoretically procreate, society is able to communicate
a consistent message to its citizens that marriage is a (normatively)
necessary part of their procreative endeavor; that if they are to procreate,
then society has endorsed the institution of marriage as the environment
for it and for the subsequent rearing of their children; and that benefits
are available explicitly to create a supportive and conducive atmosphere
for those purposes. If society proceeds similarly to recognize marriages
between same-sex couples who cannot procreate, it could be perceived as
an abandonment of this claim, and might result in the mistaken view that
civil marriage has little to do with procreation: just as the potential
of procreation would not be necessary for a marriage to be valid, marriage
would not be necessary for optimal procreation and child rearing to occur.
(Goodridge v. Department of Public Health [2003], available from
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)

The idea that marriage is not restricted to a man and woman will impact
us in another significant way as well. To grant marriage licenses to both
homosexual and heterosexual couples alike is an affirmation that the two
unions are no different in the eyes of the law. This has consequences for
child rearing. "For the first time in the history of civilization a
culture will declare that neither mothers nor fathers are essential components
of parenthood; neither makes a uniquely valuable contribution. Same-sex
marriage will deny children a right to a mother and a father."26

We do not have to wonder if same-sex marriage will ultimately have a negative
affect on traditional marriage. There has been an ongoing social experiment
of this very kind in Scandinavia. The introduction of same-sex marriage
in Scandinavia has contributed to the continued decrease of traditional
marriage, and an increase in children born out of wedlock (the out-of-wedlock
birth rate is the best way to gauge the strength of marriage in a society,
because out-of-wedlock birth rates will rise as more couples choose to forego
marriage). Cohabitation is becoming the dominant "family" form.
Cohabiting parenthood is problematic because cohabiters are known to experience
rates of family dissolution 2-3 times higher than married couples. Without
stable family units children suffer socially and emotionally, and thus are
ill-equipped to function maximally in society.

Approximately 60% of Scandinavian children are now born out of wedlock,
most of that figure to cohabiting parents. Approximately half of all births
in Norway, Denmark, and Swede, and 2/3 of all births in Iceland are to unmarried
parents. The areas in which same-sex partnerships have been embraced with
enthusiasm have experienced the greatest decline. Norway's Nordland County-which
is particularly accepting of same-sex marriage-has an astonishing 82.27%
of first-born children, and nearly 60% of second-born children born out
of wedlock (as of 2002). In comparison, in 1990 "only" 40% of
second-born children were born out of wedlock. That is an increase of 20%,
or a statistical rise of 50% in those choosing to forego marriage before/after
the birth of the second child.

The equally liberal county of Nord-Troendelag has an amazing 83.27% of
first-born children, and 57.74% of second-born children born out of wedlock
(as of 2002). This compares to 38.12% of second-born children who were born
out of wedlock in 1990 (See Stanley Kurtz, "Testimony Before the House
Judiciary Committee;" available from http://www.nationalcoalition.org/public_policy/kurtz_congress.html;
Internet, accessed 22 April 2004.). This is an increase of 20%, or a statistical
rise of 53% in those choosing to forego marriage before/after the birth
of the second child.

Perhaps the most telling indication of the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia
is the move away from their traditional practice of entering into marriage
before/after the birth of a second child. At the start of the nineties only
31% of Norwegian cohabiting parents had two or more children. In 2001, however,
that number had risen to 43%. That is an increase of 39% over a ten year
period, indicative that marriage is in severe decline.
These figures are indicative of the fact that the recognition of same-sex
partnerships is causally related to the decline of traditional marriage,
and has effectively divorced the cultural connection between parenthood
and marriage.

To be fair, Scandinavians were already separating parenthood from marriage
prior to the same-sex marriage debate, and eventual legalization of same-sex
partnerships. In fact, it was this cultural redefinition of marriage that
allowed the same-sex marriage debate to come to a head and prevail. "As
Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson describe it, in the
wake of the changes of the nineties, 'Marriage is no longer a precondition
for settling a family--neither legally nor normatively. ... What defines
and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved
from marriage to parenthood.' " (quoted by Stanley Kurtz, "The
End of Marriage in Scandinavia"; available from http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp;
Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.) But same-sex partnerships have contributed
to the further decline of traditional marriage because it locks in and reinforces
the message that marriage is not about parenthood. As social anthropologist,
Stanley Kurtz, argues, the legalization of same-sex partnerships were both
the result of, and the final nail in the coffin for separating marriage
from parenthood. This is evidenced by the fact that the out-of-wedlock birth
rates finally shot past the 50% mark since the legalization of same-sex
partnerships. This is extremely important because new social behaviors meet
their most severe cultural resistance as they enter the threshold of majority
status. It was not until the legalization of same-sex partnerships that
cohabiting parenthood was able to pass this threshold to become the norm
for family life in Scandinavia, because the legalization of same-sex partnerships
decisively sent the message to all Scandinavians that marriage is not about
children.

In July 2004 a group of five Dutch family scholars, concerned about the
state of marriage in the Netherlands, issued a letter addressed to the "parliaments [of]
the world who are debating the issue of same-sex marriage." Their warning
is so powerful that it deserves duplication here:

At a time when parliaments around the world are debating
the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw
attention to the state of marriage in The Netherlands. The undersigned
represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object
of study. Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over
recent trends in marriage and family life in our country.

Until the late 1980's, marriage was a flourishing institution
in The Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces
was relatively low compared to other Western countries, the number of
illegitimate births also low. It seems, however, that legal and social
experiments in the 1990's have had an adverse effect on the reputation
of man's most important institution.

Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has
declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990,
95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants);
by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants).
This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate
births--in 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent),
by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The
number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million
in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard
marriage as no longer relevant to their own lives or that of their offspring.
We fear that this will have serious consequences, especially for the children.
There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage
is the best structure for the successful raising of children. A child
that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems
in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the
quality of future relationships.

The question is, of course, what are the root causes of
this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate
elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be
observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest
the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed
to these harmful trends.

However, there are good reasons to believe the decline
in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for
the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After
all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the
(legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament,
advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave
the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.

In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a
lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade
Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage
and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious
social consequences. There are undoubtedly other
factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage
in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the
relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to
note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious
concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its
traditional form.

Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality
is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this
harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders
to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered
institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely
to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about
how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order (all italics
mine).

How did it come to this? How is it that marriage has come to be an "endangered
institution?" Kurtz offers a logical progression:

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception,
abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation,
reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along
with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged
people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood,
early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo
against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next
step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired.
Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply
drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why
marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should
children change that?

"If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and
is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples
be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate
same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the
very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay
marriage conceivable to begin with." (Stanley Kurtz, "The End
of Marriage in Scandinavia"; available from http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp;
Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.)

British demographer, Kathleen Kiernan, developed a four-stage model by
which to gauge a society's movement toward divorcing parenthood from marriage.
Stanley Kurtz summarized this model as follows:

In stage one, cohabitation is seen as a deviant or avant-garde
practice, and the vast majority of the population produces children within
marriage. In the second stage, cohabitation serves as a testing
period before marriage, and is generally a childless phase. In
stage three, cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable, and parenting
is no longer automatically associated with marriage. In the fourth stage marriage
and cohabitation become practically indistinguishable, with many, perhaps
even most, children born and raised outside of marriage. These stages
may vary in duration, yet once a country has reached a stage, return to
an earlier phase is unlikely. Yet once a stage has been reached,
earlier phases coexist. (Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia";
available from http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp;
Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.)

Scandinavia had already experienced stages one and two prior to the inception
of the same-sex marriage debate, with some Scandinavian countries having
entered into the beginning of stage three. The debate over, and legalization
of same-sex partnerships, however, pushed them through the upper stages
of three and into the beginning of four. The United States is similarly
situated. We are currently in stage two where the social climate is ripe
for a successful campaign on behalf of same-sex marriage. If legalized,
we can be certain that marriage in American will follow the Scandinavian
pattern.

O:It is inconsistent to allow same-sex couples to adopt children,
but not allow them to participate in the very institution designed to protect
children.A: The answer to this objection can be stated in no better way than
that offered by Justice Cordy in his dissenting comments to the Massachusetts
Supreme Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003):

The fact that the Commonwealth currently allows same-sex
couples to adopt does not affect the rationality of this conclusion.
The eligibility of a child for adoption presupposes that at least one
of the child's biological parents is unable or unwilling, for some reason,
to participate in raising the child. In that sense, society has "lost"
the optimal setting in which to raise that child--it is simply not available.
In these circumstances, the principal and overriding consideration is
the "best interests of the child," considering his or her unique
circumstances and the options that are available for that child. The objective
is an individualized determination of the best environment for a particular
child, where the normative social structure--a home with both the child's
biological father and mother--is not an option. That such a focused determination
may lead to the approval of a same-sex couple's adoption of a child does
not mean that it would be irrational for a legislator, in fashioning statutory
laws that cannot make such individualized determinations, to conclude
generally that being raised by a same-sex couple has not yet been shown
to be the absolute equivalent of being raised by one's married biological
parents.

That the State does not preclude different types of families
from raising children does not mean that it must view them all as equally
optimal and equally deserving of State endorsement and support. For example,
single persons are allowed to adopt children, but the fact that the Legislature
permits single-parent adoption does not mean that it has endorsed single
parenthood as an optimal setting in which to raise children or views it
as the equivalent of being raised by both of one's biological parents.
The same holds true with respect to same-sex couples--the fact that they
may adopt children means only that they may provide an acceptable
setting in which to raise children who cannot be raised by both of their
biological parents. The Legislature may rationally permit adoption by
same-sex couples yet harbor reservations as to whether parenthood by same-sex
couples should be affirmatively encouraged to the same extent as parenthood
by the heterosexual couple whose union produced the child. (available
from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)

O:It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of two individuals
to one another that is the sine qua non of marriage, not the begetting of
children. To say that marriage is about procreation, thereby excluding same-sex
partners, is to single out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex
and opposite-sex couples and transform it into the essence of marriage.
This begs the question.A: This was the argument offered by Chief Justice Marshall in Goodridge
v. Department of Public Health (2003). Justice Cordy countered this argument
by noting that

civil marriage is the product of society's critical need
to manage procreation as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between
members of the opposite sex. Procreation has always been at the root of
marriage and the reasons for its existence as a social institution. Its
structure, one man and one woman committed for life, reflects society's
judgment as how optimally to manage procreation and the resultant child
rearing. Attempting to divorce procreation from marriage, transforms
the form of the structure into its purpose. In doing so, history
[is turned ]on its head. (available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)

Marriage has always been about promoting procreation and managing child-rearing.
Whatever else marriage might be about, this is the defining quality of marriage.
Any attempt to divorce procreation from the essence and purpose of marriage
is revisionism at its best, or ignorance at its worst.

O:Divorce, not gays, is the biggest threat to the institution
of marriage.A: While divorce may end a particular marriage, it does not
threaten marriage as an institution. Young people still desire to be married,
and are marrying; those who get divorced often desire to, and do remarry.
(Dennis Prager, "The Divorce-Threatens-Marriage Lie"; available
from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050412.shtml;
Internet; accessed 12 April 2005)

While we bemoan the high divorce rates, such failures in marriage do not
justify redefining what constitutes a marriage. Many parents fail to raise
good children, but we don't redefine parenthood as a result. We simply teach
people how to be better parents. (Prager)

Even if it were true that divorce is threatening the institution of marriage,
how would gays help the institution? What makes us think they would divorce
at a rate any less than heterosexuals? Given what we know about the nature
of gay relationships there is good reason to believe that homosexual divorce
rates would be greater than their heterosexual counterparts. Looking at
Scandinavian countries there is good reason to believe that the recognition
of same-sex marriage will reduce the number of heterosexual who choose to
enter into marriage. People failing to enter into marriage--not divorce--is
the real threat to marriage. (Prager)

O:Homosexuality is natural.

A: "Natural" can refer to that which occurs in nature,
or the way things are designed to function (teleology). Homosexuality is
not natural in either sense of the word.

Concerning the former, homosexual advocates argue that since we see animals
engaging in homosexual behavior in the natural world, human homosexual behavior
is natural, and hence morally neutral. A few things need to be noted. First,
there is no species that practices exclusive homosexual behavior. If there
were such a species, it would die out after one generation because it would
be unable to reproduce itself! Furthermore, there is no example in nature
of same-sex animals engaging in "committed" relationships with
each another. Their same-sex encounters are "one night stands."
At best we might be able to justify bisexuality from nature because there
are animals within a species that may engage in homosexual behavior, but
they also engage in heterosexual behavior as well. Regardless, we cannot
determine what is right by simply observing what occurs in nature. Nature
shows us what happens, not what should happen. To argue that homosexual
behavior is morally benign because it occurs in the natural world is to
commit the genetic fallacy: trying to obtain an ought (prescribed behavior)
from an is (observation).

Concerning the latter, homosexual advocates have no leg to stand on. One's
sexual identity is determined by the way they were designed to function
sexually. The way we were designed to function is determined by our physical
parts. It is clear that male parts are not designed to function sexually
with other men, and female parts are not designed to function sexually with
other women. Each is designed to function sexually with members of the opposite
sex. If your parts are designed to function with someone of the opposite
sex, and yet your sexual desires are directed toward those of the same sex
something is awry. The desires do not match the hardware. The problem is
not with the hardware, but the desires. When one's supposedly "natural"
desires to not match up with the body afforded them by nature, shouldn't
this clue us into the fact that something is wrong with homosexuality-that
it is unnatural?

No matter which definition of "natural" one employs homosexuality
cannot be considered natural. Moreover, it is useless to appeal to nature
for the issue of same-sex marriage because there is no example in nature
of same-sex animals committing to each other in long-term relationships.

O: The present laws do not give homosexual partners the same
right to visit their partner in the hospital as it does married couples.
That is discriminatory.A: True, homosexual partners cannot visit their loved one in the
hospital, but this is not (unjust) discrimination. Only certain types of
relationships enjoy that privilege. I cannot visit my best friend in the
hospital, even though we have known each other for years and are very close.
The type of relationship that enjoys that privilege in the U.S. is reserved
exclusively for married couples because of the unique relationship they
share, and the value of that relationship for society. Besides, there are
ways to legally secure such rights without marriage.

O: Who are you to say who can be in love?A: Marriage is not about love. Besides, nobody is saying who can
and can't be in love. This is not even about telling people what they can
do in their private lives. If someone wants to love a person of the same
sex in a sexual way that is their choice. The issue of same-sex marriage,
however, is about public approval of a particular sort of union.

O:The argument being used by those opposed to same-sex marriage,
that society has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman (argument
based on tradition) could have been used by the slave owners 100 years ago
to keep the institution of slavery alive. Just because something is the
traditional view, or the majority are in favor of it does not make it right.
Age and numbers do not make something moral. Sometimes the courts do have
to intervene, making decisions that are contrary to the will of the people
because those decisions are the right thing to do.A: The question, though, is whether or not this is the morally right
thing to do. That must be decided before it can be determined if there is
a genuine need for the courts to overturn the will of the people.

Also, when we question or seek to change age-long institutions (especially
those that are bed-rocks to society) we need to consider why it has stood
for so long. Justice Cording made this point when he said,

This is not to say that a statute that has no rational
basis must nevertheless be upheld as long as it is of ancient origin.
However, "[t]he long history of a certain practice ... and its acceptance
as an uncontroversial part of our national and State tradition do suggest
that [the court] should reflect carefully before striking it down."
Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 378 Mass. 550, 557 (1979). (Goodridge
v. Department of Public Health [2003], available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)

Too often we tend to think that "old" and "long-standing"
means something is bad, but things that are necessarily bad usually don't
stand so long. Great care and careful consideration needs to be taken before
changing so fundamental an institution such as marriage.

O: You think that just because the majority of people oppose
same-sex marriage that same-sex marriage should not be granted to homosexuals.
Do we do politics by a majority vote? A: Yes, that is how a democracy works: the majority rules. The only
time a minority view should take the day is when the majority view is unconstitutional,
or violates a higher moral principle. It is clear that the Constitution
does not grant the right of marriage to same-sex couples either explicitly
or implicitly. It is also clear that the State's recognition of marriage
is not a right, but a privilege that can be given or withheld to whomsoever
the State so chooses. The State has no moral imperative to recognize and
privilege any relationship at all. If there is no moral imperative to begin
with, denying the privilege of marriage cannot violate a higher moral law.

Considering the fact that the issue of homosexuality is of a moral concern,
the members of society ought to be consulted before the government grants
social approval to same-sex couples in their name. This issue needs to be
decided by the public, and if the public decides to grant same-sex couples
the privilege to marry, so be it. If they decide to withhold that privilege,
so be it. Either way the politics of this issue ought to be decided by the
people.

O:If the purpose of marriage is to have children, and homosexuals'
lack of ability to do so disqualifies them from marriage, then what about
those heterosexuals who choose not to have children, or cannot have children?
Are they not families? A: Just because some people cannot or choose not to use the marriage
relationship for the purpose that culture privileged it does not mean that
heterosexual couples should not be privileged. This is the exception, but
society is protecting the relationship that brings about the rule.27

A family is what it is even if those who choose to be a family do not,
or cannot take advantage of all the benefits and purposes of a family. It's
like a hammer. It could hang on the wall without being used, and yet still
be what it is. It still exists for the potential of being used in the way
it was purposed, even if its purpose is never realized. The natural potential
and purpose is there, and thus it accords with natural law.28
Homosexuals cannot produce children, and it would be unnatural for them
to raise children.

The fact that a couple cannot have children does not change the fact that
they have the biological possibility of doing so. "The natural tie
of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases
children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is
even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove
the rule; they don't nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for
children."29

Moreover, any biological incapability of a couple is typically not discovered
until after the marriage. The government would be unaware of it as well,
then, when issuing the marriage license. What the government does know is
that heterosexual couples have the potential to create the next generation
of society, and thus bless their union together for that end.

O:Marriage has changed over the years. For example, in some
cultures polygamy was accepted as valid. In the past women were viewed as
a husband's property. If marriage is not a static institution, but takes
on different forms in different societies and times, then society can change
marriage today as well. A: Yes, there have been some exceptions to the rule, but there is
still a rule that has remained throughout the ages. In polygamous marriages
it is still a male-female relationship--there are simply more women involved.
The way in which women are viewed in a relationship by their spouse is not
a change in marriage (it is still one man and one woman), but a particular
view of anth ropology being applied to the marriage contract. Marriage has
not undergone a metamorphosis over time in which its present form is radically
different from past forms. It is an exaggeration to say that marriage has
changed. As Greg Koukl pointed out:

There have been changes [to marriage]. Historically some
have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant,
and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once,
either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy).
Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage
has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.30

O: It is not right for you to restrict marriage to a man and
a woman.A: Do you accept group marriages, incestual marriage, marriages with
animals, etc? No? Then we are both the kind of people who restrict marriage.
The question is whether or not our restrictions are principled or arbitrary
in nature.

Summary Argument

I. Marriage is something in particular.

A. Entails idea of procreation (at least principally).
B. Environment to raise children.
C. Those who wish to open marriage up to homosexuals still want marriage
to mean something in particular, but they want to define what that particular
meaning is. They continue to disqualify groups that meet their own criteria
(love, commitment).
D. Marriage is recognized, not defined by society.

II. Government provides social support for marriage because it recognizes
marriage's foundational role in society: heterosexual couples both produce
and nurture the next generation of society. Apart from its concern for children
there is no reason for the government to regulate any private relationships.

III. Homosexuals want the government to give their relationships
the same social standing that heterosexual relationships have been accorded,
even though homosexual relationships do not have the same function for society.

IV. This is not about equal rights. Homosexuals already have equal
rights, but want more rights.

V. This is not about freedom to love and commit, but a new social
standing.

Tactics

Tactic #1

Ask, "What is civil marriage?" You want to lead them to the fact
that marriage is society's stamp of approval on, and encouragement of particular
relationships, because those relationships serve an important social interest.
Then ask, "What purpose do same-sex relationships serve society, such
that we should give them social support so as to secure their stability?"
This leads into tactic #2

Tactic #2

Ask, "What is the purpose of marriage?" This is an important
question because the purpose of marriage determines its form (one woman,
one man). Use this opportunity to dispel the idea that marriage is about
love and commitment, and solidify the fact that marriage is about procreation.
Once marriage's purpose is clear, it becomes readily apparent that same-sex
couples do not qualify.

Tactic #3

Ask, "Why should society give marriage benefits to same-sex couples?"
A common response will be "fairness." This response recognizes
that heterosexual couples benefit from the privileges of marriage, and that
those same privileges are not being given to same-sex couples. Ask, "What
is it about heterosexual relationships that justifies them receiving special
benefits not available to other citizens?" The point you want to make
is that whatever it is that justifies giving special benefits to heterosexual
couples, must also be exhibited by same-sex couples before we are justified
in giving them the same preferential treatment. What is it that justifies
giving special benefits to heterosexual couples? Is it the government's
interest in promoting romantic love? No. It is their ability to create children.
Seeing that same-sex couples cannot produce children on their own, it is
not unfair to deny them the benefits given to heterosexual couples for their
ability to do so.

Another approach would be to ask, "When does fairness apply?"
The answer you are trying to lead them to is that fairness is applicable
when you have two or more equal parties. Once they grasp that point, ask
"Are heterosexual and homosexual relationships equal, or do they differ
in some significant way?" Obviously they differ in a big way: heterosexual
relationships produce children; same-sex relationships do not. So fairness
is not the issue.

Tactic #4

Because many people think same-sex marriage is an issue of equality and
freedom ask, "What freedoms or liberties are being limited if we do
not allow same-sex couples to marry?" This question is completely disarming,
because it is clear that no liberties or freedoms are being limited. The
only thing being denied them is social respect, so follow up with the following:
"The only thing being denied to same-sex couples is social respect,
and we are free to give our respect to those we deem morally worthy of it."

Tactic #5

Point out that if society defines the institution of marriage, society
must have good grounds for defining it the way they do. Why, given the new
way of viewing and defining marriage, can we prohibit some sorts of relationships
from being considered marriage while including others? If love and mutual
commitment is the basis of marriage, then there is no reason to disallow
every sort of combination of people/things.

Tactic #6

Our argument for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage must
begin with marriage's purpose, not its participants. Once we re-establish
its purpose, its participants will be clearly evident. This is particularly
important because the common justifications for same-sex marriage are centered
on a pseudo-understanding of the essence of marriage (love, commitment).
If marriage is only about love and commitment, then same-sex couples qualify;
however, if marriage is about procreation, then same-sex couples need not
apply.

1. In the past I have not favored using "same-sex
marriage" to describe the issue at hand because of its apparent origin
in political correctness. Politically correct language tends to make the
dishonorable seem honorable through the manipulation of language (e.g. adultery
= extramarital affair; lying = disingenuous, etc.), and I had no desire
to beautify an issue as ugly as this. As a result I preferred the more politically
incorrect term "gay marriage." My mind was changed on this issue,
however, by radio talk-show host, Dennis Prager. He noted that gays already
have the ability to marry; they just can't marry someone of the same sex.
The law doesn't care about your sexual preference, but the sex of the person
you want to marry. If they are of the same sex as you, you cannot marry.
It's not an issue of who can marry, but whom you can marry. Thus the real
issue is not gay marriage per se, but same-sex marriage.2. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl's live radio broadcast
"Stand to Reason" on February 15, 2004 on KBRT AM 740.3. Ibid.4. Some will accuse me of using a slippery slope argument
here. I am, but there are two versions of the slippery slope: the fallacious
version, the proper version (referred to as a logical slippery slope). I
am using the latter. The fallacious version is that which rejects a view
based on what it may lead to, even when there is no logical
connection between the view itself and its supposed implications. The proper
use of the argument follows the reductio ad absurdum argument in
isolating the logical principles undergirding the view, and following them
to their logical conclusion. If the conclusion is unacceptable, we are forced
to reconsider our guiding principles. In this particular case the principles
undergirding the argument for same-sex marriage are applicable to other
morally relevant situations. The reasoning behind allowing same-sex marriage
is that we shouldn't discriminate, and "they love each other."
If these are the principles upon which we determine eligibility for marriage,
they are applicable to many other sorts of relationships that even most
same-sex advocates disapprove of. When we point out that these principles
are applicable to any sort of relationship that meets the same criteria,
we are not employing a fallacious argument.5. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl's live radio broadcast
"Stand to Reason" on February 15, 2004 on KBRT AM 740.6. I am specifically thinking of homosexuals who adopt
children, or those who conceive a child through the process of in vitro
fertilization using a donor-womb (in the case of male homosexuals) or using
donor sperm (in the case of female homosexuals). There is third way for
homosexuals to obtain children, however, and that is from a previous heterosexual
relationship. There is a fairly large segment of the homosexual population
who was married and conceived children before entering the gay lifestyle.
There is one way, then, in which homosexuals could obtain children in a
natural way. This does not invalidate my point, however, because it is not
the homosexual couple as a unit that produced this child in a natural way,
but rather one of the partners who did so. This partner simply brings the
child into a new, unnatural family unit to be nurtured there. This
does not constitute a natural means of obtaining children for the homosexual
couple, but rather the homosexual individual. 7. Homosexuals typically do not even want to establish
households together. Only 29% of homosexuals live with a partner. Of this
number, about 20% have children living with them. This means only 8% of
the total homosexual population in the U.S. is raising children. See Timothy
J. Dailey, Ph.D., "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to
Married Couples"; available from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03;
Internet; accessed 07 April 2004.8. Furthermore, statistics reveal that same-sex unions
are less stable than heterosexual marriages. Only 5% of same-sex couples
live in a committed relationship for 20 years or more. With such low long-term
commitment levels, approximately 9 out of 10 children raised by same-sex
couples will experience a "divorce" in their adolescent years.
Knowing the detrimental effects divorce has on children, why should we favor
same-sex couples raising children? Same-sex couples simply do not provide
the stability children need for proper development. See Timothy J. Dailey,
Ph.D., "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples";
available from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03;
Internet; accessed 07 April 2004.9. Greg Koukl, "Same-Sex Marriage--Challenges
and Responses," Solid Ground May/June 2004, p. 4.10. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl's live radio
broadcast "Stand to Reason" on May 16, 2004 on KBRT AM 740. 11. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl's live radio
broadcast "Stand to Reason" on February 15, 2004 on KBRT AM 740.12. Peter Sprigg, "Questions on Same-Sex Unions
Answered: Responding to Andrew Sullivan"; available from www.frc.org;
Internet, accessed 04 May 2004. 13. Greg Koukl, "Same-Sex Marriage--Challenges
and Responses," Solid Ground May/June 2004, p. 1. 14. Greg Koukl, "When the Bride is a Groom";
available from http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9903.htm;
Internet; accessed 10 February 2001. 15. Greg Koukl, "Same-Sex Marriage--Challenges
and Responses," Solid Ground May/June 2004, p. 1.16. It is for this reason that when a homosexual declares
"I have a right to marry even if you don't approve of it" he is
stating an oxymoron. He is essentially saying "I have a right to your
approval even if you don't approve." Taken from Greg Koukl, "When
the Bride is a Groom"; available from http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9903.htm;
Internet; accessed 10 February 2001.17. Dr. Timothy J. Dailey reported on the differences
between same-sex and married couples, based on statistical data from around
the world. He presented data demonstrating that most homosexuals choose
not to legalize their unions when given the opportunity to do so (only 2-21%
choose to do so internationally, compared to 52% of heterosexuals in the
U.S. who choose to marry). This further demonstrates that the issue of same-sex
marriage is not fueled from a desire to marry, but a desire for social approval.
See Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual
Couples to Married Couples"; available from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03;
Internet; accessed 07 April 2004.18. Greg Koukl, "When the Bride is a Groom";
available from http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9903.htm;
Internet; accessed 10 February 2001.19. Greg Koukl, "Same-Sex Marriage--Challenges
and Responses," Solid Ground May/June 2004, p. 2. 20. J. Budziszewski, "So-Called Marriage";
available from http://www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000865.html;
Internet, accessed 05 August 2004.21. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1952), p. 97.22. Greg Koukl, "When the Bride is a Groom";
available from http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9903.htm;
Internet; accessed 10 February 2001. 23. Ibid. 24. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl on his live
radio broadcast "Stand to Reason" on May 16, 2004 on KBRT AM 740.
25.Greg Koukl, in a pastoral letter dated May 1, 2004
accompanying the May/June 2004 issue of Solid Ground on the topic
"Same-Sex Marriage-Challenges and Responses."26. Ibid.
27. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl on his live radio broadcast "Stand
to Reason" on May 16, 2004 on KBRT AM 740.
28. Based on the remarks of Greg Koukl's live radio broadcast "Stand
to Reason" on February 15, 2004 on KBRT AM 740.29. Greg Koukl, "Same-Sex Marriage--Challenges
and Responses," Solid Ground May/June 2004, p. 3.30. Ibid.